wikipedia said:
So, what how would the forteenth and fifteenth centuries have played out with no Black Death (1347–1350)? Any ideas?
WI: No Black Death
- Thread starter Justin Pickard
- Start date
So, what how would the forteenth and fifteenth centuries have played out with no Black Death (1347–1350)? Any ideas?
In OTL the Peasants revolt, at least in England, seems to have been a conseqence of the ruling class trying to keep down wages when peasants took advantage of the Labour shortage.
It has been theorised (though, as alwayws when we speak of time before the 16th century, on insufficient data to be certain) that Europe in the late 13th century had brought the labour-intensive exploitation of marginal lands almost to its limits. The European diet increwasingly moved towards the products of intensive agriculture (wheat, rye, oats, legumes, garden vegetables) and away from those of extensive pastoralism (beef, mutton, pork, dairy products, animal fats). The resulting societal structure would have been one of perpetual population surplus, with power in the hands of those controlling the land and the plots to nourish a family getting smaller every generation. A viable analogy would be feudal Japan, parts of China or coastal Annam, where few people control the land and the majority live in bitter poverty. It was the disastrous famines and diseases of the 14th century that shifted European agriculture towards extensive practises and created the labout scarcity that created the 'golden' fifteenth century and the high-demand society that turned aggressively outwards to meet its perceived needs once its population growth and climatic conditions made it impossible on its own continent.
IOW if this theory is correct, you could be nixing the whole European Expansion thing. I don't subscribe to it wholeheartedly, but it is interesting that the Europeans of the time were the only population on archeological record where settled agriculturalists by and large had the bulky pastoralist physiques produced by high-protein diets.
IOW if this theory is correct, you could be nixing the whole European Expansion thing. I don't subscribe to it wholeheartedly, but it is interesting that the Europeans of the time were the only population on archeological record where settled agriculturalists by and large had the bulky pastoralist physiques produced by high-protein diets.
Times of hard ship are usually times of increasing religiousness. Times of well being are often associated with behaviour considered immoral by more religious people. The first being followed quickly by the second might be a reason for the inquisition and the likes. That part might have been avoided, at least partly. Some parts of the Renaissance might be lacking in todays history books, too, because of that - even though progress like the first banks, the first universities, the first large European librairies, and so on might have happened anyways.
Some progress might be faster - larger cities tend to produce more knowledge, more specialization, and so on. I'm not sure about democratization - in a world where most people live close to starvation, exercising political power is difficult for peasants, to say the least. So we'd probably not have much British style slow progress in this direction. Changes like the French Revolution might be more likely every once in a while, but the other monarchies and the Catholic Church will be pretty strong opponents for that.
Still, knowledge and education will spread. Anything goes.
European ships will get bigger at the same pace (mabe even faster) and more and more sea worthy. That means, the western African coast will be explored as in OTL, maybe even faster, but not as slave hunting ground. Instead, gold and other riches might be the driving force - which might not be as much of a force as slave trading, though, considering the lower economic use. Also, the north will be explored and the Catholic Church will loose a lot of respect in the question of the geography of this planet. After Greenland has been rediscovered, America might be discovered by a northern European country instead of Spain/Portugal. Maybe even a country in the Mediterranean, as they were much longer in the shipping business.
New found land (funny
might be interesting mainly as fishing ground, with a little bit of trading and some minor outposts. Only after those outposts become revenue for taxes will systematic exploration and settlement become interesting. Once that starts, it might even be much faster, because of the high population pressure and the slightly better technological development.
Would be interesting if we get something like a Protestant or an Anglican church. Or if Catholcism is replaced by something else - in the middle east, Muslim religion became strong when the end of the world predicted by the Christians didn't materialize.
Some progress might be faster - larger cities tend to produce more knowledge, more specialization, and so on. I'm not sure about democratization - in a world where most people live close to starvation, exercising political power is difficult for peasants, to say the least. So we'd probably not have much British style slow progress in this direction. Changes like the French Revolution might be more likely every once in a while, but the other monarchies and the Catholic Church will be pretty strong opponents for that.
Still, knowledge and education will spread. Anything goes.
European ships will get bigger at the same pace (mabe even faster) and more and more sea worthy. That means, the western African coast will be explored as in OTL, maybe even faster, but not as slave hunting ground. Instead, gold and other riches might be the driving force - which might not be as much of a force as slave trading, though, considering the lower economic use. Also, the north will be explored and the Catholic Church will loose a lot of respect in the question of the geography of this planet. After Greenland has been rediscovered, America might be discovered by a northern European country instead of Spain/Portugal. Maybe even a country in the Mediterranean, as they were much longer in the shipping business.
New found land (funny
might be interesting mainly as fishing ground, with a little bit of trading and some minor outposts. Only after those outposts become revenue for taxes will systematic exploration and settlement become interesting. Once that starts, it might even be much faster, because of the high population pressure and the slightly better technological development.Would be interesting if we get something like a Protestant or an Anglican church. Or if Catholcism is replaced by something else - in the middle east, Muslim religion became strong when the end of the world predicted by the Christians didn't materialize.
If there was no Mongol empire then the Silk Road might not have been open enough to get plague to Europe from Asia, if that's where it came from. That seems to be the consensus of most historians.
So less labor shortage and a more "Japanese" Europe? Without the spare capital for exploring the oceans, investing in inventions like printing, and argueing about religion?
So less labor shortage and a more "Japanese" Europe? Without the spare capital for exploring the oceans, investing in inventions like printing, and argueing about religion?
I think arguing about religion would still be a major pastime. It doesn't require much capital investment and lots of poor people seem to make a good background for it.
With no Black Death I would think we might have a lot more Crusading going on, it would be a good way of dealing with the shortage of land and growing population...
carlton_bach said:
See, here's the problem I have. The Chinese population went down far, and fast, during the Yuan dynasty, in part due to the conquest, in part due to the plague.
Yet China didn't have a commercial boom as a result.
And, of course, it's interesting that the plague hit Europe shortly after the diastrous famines, which you refer to. It's almost like Europe was hitting its Malthusian limits.
Hmm. My problem with this is that Europeans were expanding before this as well; in the Baltic, in the Mediterranean, etc.
[qute]IOW if this theory is correct, you could be nixing the whole European Expansion thing. I don't subscribe to it wholeheartedly, but it is interesting that the Europeans of the time were the only population on archeological record where settled agriculturalists by and large had the bulky pastoralist physiques produced by high-protein diets.[/QUOTE]
Was this true even at this point? MY understanding was that this was an early medieval thing.
To a larger extent, but not entirely. Europe, particularly northern and northwestern Europe, hads a high consumption of animal protein and fat for much of its history. As far as we can tell, it dipped in the 13th century as population expanded and again in the 16th century during the Little Ice Age, but rose in the 14th and 15th centuries. Where we have data (which is rare), meat consumption levels are comparable to the second half of the 19th and the early 20th centuries, not the historic lows of the 17th and 18th.
BUt it is obvious enough that can not be the only reason. After all, the early 18th century shows Europeans *can* live under intensive agriculture conditions.
The Burgundian Lower Countries and Liège were by-and-large spared by the Plague, though they were one of the wealthiest and most densely populated area of Europe. It reached unprecedented levels of prosperity at the time.
The plague stopped in Europe when the people turned towards building houses from stones (ceramics in the south). Those were much less affected by rats, fleas, and so on. Rich people also survived better because of better hygiene. So rich areas were generally (not always) better off.
But I also see the problem that avoiding one reason for getting the plague just means people stay less immune, and the illness strikes later, maybe even more. A much better way would be to have the populations stay at their population limit of food production and just a few cases in most towns - limited by more hygiene, better construction, and so on.
In this scenario, population rates stay unchanged (increasing as normal), with all the implications, and a big shock is averted, while we have the same improvement on the people's immune system until they get their artificial immune systems (effective medicine).
Sorry for not looking up exact dates of the founding of universities, big libraries, and so on in Europe. But afaik, there was big progress after the 14th century.
But I also see the problem that avoiding one reason for getting the plague just means people stay less immune, and the illness strikes later, maybe even more. A much better way would be to have the populations stay at their population limit of food production and just a few cases in most towns - limited by more hygiene, better construction, and so on.
In this scenario, population rates stay unchanged (increasing as normal), with all the implications, and a big shock is averted, while we have the same improvement on the people's immune system until they get their artificial immune systems (effective medicine).
Sorry for not looking up exact dates of the founding of universities, big libraries, and so on in Europe. But afaik, there was big progress after the 14th century.
JHPier said:
Actually, there was a real flurry of university foundations in Northern Europe in the late 14th and 15th centuries, before the invention of the printing press.